Re: New top-level dir: /state [WAS: Re: F36 Change: Relocate RPM database to /usr (System-Wide Change] proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:20 AM David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:01:57AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RelocateRPMToUsr
> >
> >== Summary ==
> >Currently, the RPM databases is located in `/var`. Let's move it to
> >`/usr`. The move is already under way in rpm-ostree-based
> >installations, and in (open)SUSE.
> >[snip]
>
> Moving the RPM database to /usr feels incorrect to me, but we should move it
> to gain the improvements as noted in the feature proposal.

Going back to the original discussions on moving rpmdb...

Preferred is a new top-level location in /usr, .e.g /usr/sysimage/rpm.
Next is "least worst" in /usr/lib/sysimage/rpm
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2017-October/006764.html
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2017-October/006722.html

And the convergence was on /usr/lib/sysimage/rpm
http://lists.rpm.org/pipermail/rpm-maint/2017-October/006785.html

I don't see how /state solves the problem, rather than just
rearranging the chairs.


> Numerous followups have noted the requirement that /usr contain read-only
> content, that it be shareable across hosts, and similar concepts.  While this
> may or may not doable now like we could in the past, the bigger thing to me is
> around the understanding of what /usr contains.  It is generally understood
> that /usr contains [most of] the installed system.  What I think is a bigger
> requirement or expection now is that one can tar up /usr and transport it to
> another system or virtual machine or container and expect that it will
> _probably_ work maybe with a bit of tinkering.  This is a really valuable
> thing to have for developers.  Moving the RPM database to this tree adds a
> component that is unnecessary and sort of out of place.

Should /usr be independently portable? And is that with a version
matched /opt, or can there be mix and match revisions of /usr and
/opt?

If /usr is to be truly portable and have e.g. 'rpm query, verify,
remove, reinstall' work as expected, you need the metadata (the
database) representing its state to always come along for the ride.
Either the database is already in /usr, or you have to make sure /usr
and /state are inseparable.

If /usr and /state are inseparable, and if rpm can also describe
anything in /etc or /var or /opt, then all or part of those
directories are also inseparable from /state. And thus /usr. So I
think /state doesn't help.

To what degree do rpm and dnf intend to touch locations outside of
/usr *and care* about tracking those changes? I think rpm can't remain
static for all time. It either needs to become aware of multiple root
trees, and even mix and match top-level directories to create variable
roots. And possibly even manage these things. Or it needs to constrain
its reach to /usr and /opt. Whether /usr and /opt are tied together,
or can be mix and match with their own rpmdb's, I have no strong
opinion on.


-- 
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux